Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Hero


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Space Hero

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Textbook WP:TOOSOON. Nothing after the initial announcement has occurred. No valid redirect target. Deprodded for no reason Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, due to the high volume of PRODs at this time, I am unable to document a rationale for some of my DEPRODs. WP:DEPROD does not require supplying a rationale. Please WP:AGF that I have one in each case. In this case, AFAIK, there's no such thing as a textbook WP:TOOSOON. The closest we have for this topic is WP:NYF and I don't see an obvious and uncontroversial argument for deleting this there. ~Kvng (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The obvious and uncontroversial argument is that there is literally one source and nothing else to say about the show other than "it will happen soon". Nothing else has been said about it yet. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not obvious to me but if this WP:SNOWballs, trust me, I'll learn from it at adjust my DEPRODding. ~Kvng (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @TenPoundHammer I agree this article was a stub with only one reference, but please see my keep argument below. Please note that this was not one of those cases where it took heaps of effort to find all the sources, I acknowledge there have been times I have been able to find no sources while skilled hunters located a barrage of sources hidden somewhere out of range of a search engine. However this show turns up pages and pages of great sourcing, not just one. MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

In my view, this is a clear case for keep. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep a quick cursory google search shows a bunch of sources for this. Huggums537 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - bordering on speedy, if TPH feels it warranted based on the following.
 * 1) Significant coverage exists in Smithsonian Magazine, Kids News, New York Post, Axios, PR News Wire. These sources alone demonstrate the article content is verifiable by reliable, independent sources covering the show significantly and in detail, and so the general notability guideline is met. The subject has attracted wide media attention for at least two years now, showing sustained attention over a sufficiently significant period of time.
 * 2) While it is true that unaired shows are not normally eligible for Wikipedia articles due to a lack of  notability, this show has gone beyond a mere announcement and is in fact widely discussed by very highly prominent media sources in variety and detail. As this show in my view meets notability, I do not think it it is WP:TOOSOON, which is from an essay that acknowledges media can merit an article if any notability criteria is met per WP:N.
 * 3) Lastly, and while it would be sufficient for the sources merely to exist, I have grown the article from approx 1.7k bytes to over 4k bytes, and added a number of references into the article per this diff.
 * Keep per MaxnaCarter.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.